The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-11-15
THE LOAN.

EDITOR BULLETIN TO the re-
quest of a publie-spirited friend, to
say my say about the Hawaiian
Bonds, first replied, that / do not
care to appear to seek notoriety or
to intrude myself after so long an
absence from the country. To
which he insisted that it is every
mans duty to show his interest in
all that affects the common veal.
l agree to this, and am only too de-
lighted that this community, with
all its intelligence and individuality
has risen up in its manhood and
womanhood to assert Its divine right
to a respectable and respected Gov
eminent.
Now for the bonds. | know that
the public distrust them root and
branch. do myself. There seems
to me to be no authority under the
Loan Acts to make the bonds pay
able in sterling money, Or in Lon
don, except the interest, and that it
is neither necessary nor polite
to impose on this country such re-
quiz ements. No Government can
afford to admit for one moment,as it
seems to me that it is liable TO- the
unauthorized acts OF its agents.
If the proposed bonds are not
such as the law itself sanctions,
there is no consideration of public
or private policy which can Justify
their issue. In one sense, there are
no "innocent parties" dealing with
Government agents, for as general
rule, as | understand, all persons
deal with such agents at their peril,
and are bound TO see to it that the
engagements of such agents are
lawfully authorized. The usual
course in placing a loan is, sup
pose, to obtain thes ervices of brokers
who for agreed compensation or
commissions, obtain purchasers of
the rights TO the bonds. In this in
stance, the rights, as have been
accustomed to hear them termed,
were taken at 9S, as the statute
authorized. The buyers OF such
rights could and, / believe, did have
them sold and quoted on the London
Stock Exchange, where for time
they were at Il high premium. That
premium of course is the profit
made by such buyers, and not of
this Government. The subscribers
for the bonds, or rights, look to
the brokers who are regarded as
men of the first standing in COM
mercial circles. If the brokers
acting for the subscribers, and
by consent of the Financial Agent
of this Government, agreed
that bonds should be forthcoming
which the Loan Acts do not autho-
rize, they alone are responsible, for
our Financial Agent could not bind
his principal beyond the limits of
the Loan Acts. If the brokers
either for themselves or for the SUBJ
scribers, or syndicate, engaged that
this Government pay more than the
Loan Acts authorize for the loan,
such engagement is simply void.
All this, as it seems to me, is fun
damental. But it also strikes me
that there is possible room to doubt
whether the engagement to pay
fl5, 1000, or some part of it for tex
penses of floating the loan, etc."
(the etc. is a disagreeable word) is
not actually authorized by Section A
of the Amended Act. This ques-
ton should have judicial, and not
simply legislative construction.
There may also be fair ground to
doubt whether, if it be true that the
Government has by an authorized
agent. received the money, less the
Els, 200, it can refuse to issue bonds
solely for the Withholding of that
sum. Not a day should be lost in
issuing such bonds as the statute
authorizes, if it be shown (not by
newspaper articles or legislative
action but by the opinions of the
justices of our Supreme Court) that
it is the legal duty of the Govern
ment to issue them. No question
of expediency need be or ought to
be considered until our legal obi
cations are first properly determined. |
If the preposterous sum of $780,
900 for foreign loan of 81, 0O0,- |
600 has got to be paid in order to
fulfill the lawful obligations which
the late Government sanctioned, it
must be paid, ruat coel"m. Other
wise. il mnSt not be maid.